Is it time to change the rule?

[fastpitchforever]

A replant is legal, a crow hop is not. The key is dragging the toe to keep contact. Pitchers should replant to their advantage.
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=52703

[Hurricane]

hey, I hear you loud and clear, Sparky. I understand the complexities. But what rule will be allowed to be broken next? It's a slippery slope.

What's next? What about this scenario: How about allowing the base runners to leave the base once the pitcher begins her motion? I mean, really, it's just a second or two early, close enough, why bother calling it, it's a judgement call, and the game will move along quicker then. No one will be caught stealing. In fact, the catcher will probably just throw the ball back to the pitcher to keep the game moving along. Hey, it's just a rule."

As someone who doesn't care about rules or consquences once said: At this point, what difference does it make?"

Here's another conversation:

brrrrrrrringg

Umpire Director for all Girls Fastpitch Tournaments/Friendlies: "Hello!"

Head of Umpiring for ASA, PGF, USSA, etc.: "Hi, I'm Mr. U from the the Umpires Association. I just wanted to inform you that I've been getting a lot of complaints from League Officials and Coaches about the lack of knowledge on what constitutes an "illegal" pitch. It seems there's been way too many perfect games; no-hitters, and shutouts being pitched lately."

UD: "Yes, I know. The pitching has gotten so much better in recent years."

HU: "Well, not exactly. The pitchers have been allowed to skirt the rules a bit. I'm not sure if it's their pitching coach or head coach or daddy, but umpires are in complete acquiescence about it. This must stop before it gets out of hand. Therefore, it has been decided that if umpires want to keep their Association Patch that qualifies them to get paid to be an umpire, they must call illegal pitches. No replanting or crow-hopping will be tolerated. Period.

UD: "but, Mr. U, the tournament directors keep telling us not to send them the umpires that call games by the rules. They want to make up their own rules about what's legal or illegal. In fact, one tournament director wants us to keep calling strikes when it's clear the pitcher is replanting and crow-hopping. Said something about the tears rolling down faces. Not the pitcher's face, but her pitching coach's, her dad's, and her Head Coach. What do we do then?

HU: "Well, tell them to learn the rules. What's next, telling the umpire to call a ball fair when it was only just a few inches foul?" A rule is a rule. In fact, if I find out any umpires aren't calling the game according to the rules, then they won't be umpiring for very long as they will lose their accreditation.

[Hurricane]

A replant is legal, a crow hop is not. The key is dragging the toe to keep contact. Pitchers should replant to their advantage.
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=52703

I could be wrong, of course, but I think the complaint is that it is NOT a toe-drag, but a complete replant. Sounds funny and awkward. But you'd know it when you see it.

[Tyler Durden]

Yes this topic has been flogged to death, but it still fascinates me that the problem remains. And the defenders claim that what I'm seeing is actually a pitcher who is remaining in contact with the ground. That the pitcher is toe dragging across a trench, so therefore her toe 'would be in contact with the ground if the trench wasn't there'. What is funny to watch is, when a pitcher is called for an IP and Blue says 'you are crow-hopping', watch the next few pitches the pitcher throws. I guarantee you that you will see her rear-foot toe pointing down during the pitch as she comes off of the PP, as she is required to do to drag that toe and stay in contact with the ground. By the time she faces the next batter, that will stop happening, and she will be back to her usual technique. I've seen it happen many, many, many times. Now, what does that tell you?
All I'm saying is, the rule is arbitrarily and sometimes incorrectly being applied. Let's get rid of the rule. If we are all OK with a pitcher releasing from 40 feet, that's fine. If we need a release from 43 feet, then move the PP back to 46. And get rid of the rule.

[PDad]

A replant is legal, a crow hop is not. The key is dragging the toe to keep contact. Pitchers should replant to their advantage.
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=52703

I could be wrong, of course, but I think the complaint is that it is NOT a toe-drag, but a complete replant. Sounds funny and awkward. But you'd know it when you see it.

I know what you mean, but what most people complain about as a 'replant' is not an IP according to the official interpretations of the rules. Replant is a term used to describe a crowhop, which generally occurs before the start of the delivery (i.e. before the hands separate) and is measured in inches rather than feet.

Do we see pitchers who legally drag away from the rubber and then see their pivot foot twist, turn or dig into the dirt? Yes, I see that fairly often. I've also been instructed in umpire training classes that this is not a rule violation. Any twist or turn of the pivot foot can be disregarded, so long as it isn't causing the stride foot to come down at a "second landing point", as if the pitcher had taken two steps or pushed off from the rubber twice.

Bretman said it isn't an IP unless the pivot foot is being used a second time to propel the body further out (i.e. as if taking a 2nd step/stride). What I see most pitchers doing is bracing themselves while they finish their delivery.

NCAA rules have an additional stipulation that the drag foot not bear weight. I'd like to hear from an NCAA umpire how that affects their rules vs ASA and NFHS.

[PDad]

Yes this topic has been flogged to death, but it still fascinates me that the problem remains. And the defenders claim that what I'm seeing is actually a pitcher who is remaining in contact with the ground. That the pitcher is toe dragging across a trench, so therefore her toe 'would be in contact with the ground if the trench wasn't there'. What is funny to watch is, when a pitcher is called for an IP and Blue says 'you are crow-hopping', watch the next few pitches the pitcher throws. I guarantee you that you will see her rear-foot toe pointing down during the pitch as she comes off of the PP, as she is required to do to drag that toe and stay in contact with the ground. By the time she faces the next batter, that will stop happening, and she will be back to her usual technique. I've seen it happen many, many, many times. Now, what does that tell you?
All I'm saying is, the rule is arbitrarily and sometimes incorrectly being applied. Let's get rid of the rule. If we are all OK with a pitcher releasing from 40 feet, that's fine. If we need a release from 43 feet, then move the PP back to 46. And get rid of the rule.

You need to either get better umpires, have your hearing checked and/or learn the difference between a leap and a crowhop.

[Tyler Durden]

Yes this topic has been flogged to death, but it still fascinates me that the problem remains. And the defenders claim that what I'm seeing is actually a pitcher who is remaining in contact with the ground. That the pitcher is toe dragging across a trench, so therefore her toe 'would be in contact with the ground if the trench wasn't there'. What is funny to watch is, when a pitcher is called for an IP and Blue says 'you are crow-hopping', watch the next few pitches the pitcher throws. I guarantee you that you will see her rear-foot toe pointing down during the pitch as she comes off of the PP, as she is required to do to drag that toe and stay in contact with the ground. By the time she faces the next batter, that will stop happening, and she will be back to her usual technique. I've seen it happen many, many, many times. Now, what does that tell you?
All I'm saying is, the rule is arbitrarily and sometimes incorrectly being applied. Let's get rid of the rule. If we are all OK with a pitcher releasing from 40 feet, that's fine. If we need a release from 43 feet, then move the PP back to 46. And get rid of the rule.

You need to either get better umpires, have your hearing checked and/or learn the difference between a leap and a crowhop.

1- sheesh. I used the "Blue says 'you are crow-hopping'" phrase to save me the time and effort of writing:

"Blue calls an IP, then walks slowly over to the mound to explain to the pitcher what she did improperly, then the pitchers coach slowly walks out to the mound with his head down, as if deep in thought about the mysteries of the universe, then the pitchers coach emphatically argues about the Blue's misinterpretation of the situation, while the pitcher looks on confused, angry, resigned, or all three. Then the pitchers dad in the bleachers carries on about the outrage and indignity that his family honor is suffering at the hands of the Umpiring Profession, and how this is threatening his daughters 5 year Fully at Oklahoma. Then they settle it to no one's satisfaction. Then play resumes, with a momentary blatant attempt to keep toe in contact with ground." My bad. It didn't dawn on me that anyone would conclude that I was literally claiming I heard an umpire say "You crow-hopped".

2- I'm aware of the difference between the two terms. Stop being so defensive. If your position is "no one is crow-hopping", thats fine.

[PDad]

You need to either get better umpires, have your hearing checked and/or learn the difference between a leap and a crowhop.

2- I'm aware of the difference between the two terms. Stop being so defensive. If your position is "no one is crow-hopping", thats fine.

If you knew the difference, why did you write crowhop while describing a leap? That's very basic stuff for someone that's taken the righteous position you have on the pitching rules.

I'm not defensive nor saying no one crowhops. My DD is called for a crowhop a couple times a year and it's a legitimate call when she slides her pivot foot an inch off the pitcher's plate before taking her stride. No big deal - she simply is more careful after that and it does not affect her ability to pitch. She's very rarely called for it a second time.

For the record, I'm all for calling IPs and have no sympathy for experienced pitchers that have trouble adjusting after they've been called for one. It's typically something that's been called many times before. We had a HS pitcher a few years ago that was still struggling with leaping as a senior and got pulled from several games in the 1st inning when the BU consistently called it.

I am tired of people whining about "replants" that aren't an actual rule violation. It's often the same people that say the hands are part of the bat.

[fasterpitch92701]

A replant is legal, a crow hop is not. The key is dragging the toe to keep contact. Pitchers should replant to their advantage.
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=52703

Replant is a term used to describe a crowhop, which generally occurs before the start of the delivery (i.e. before the hands separate) and is measured in inches rather than feet

Ok... got it... RH pitcher now drags right toe 30 feet towards home (hobbling with left leg but... yah know, the rules are meant to be severely bent) and pushes off from 13 feet in front of the plate launching a 70MPH fastball. In that absurd example it is, apparently, a legal pitch as the toe... was.... dragged. It's a bi#ch for the catcher. Yeow! If the batter ever manages to see the ball and hit it the pitcher is toast/dead. Huuummmm.... Yes, the example is an intended absurdity so don't get your big girl panties in a twist. But, apparently, some think a "near absurdity" is... fine. How far down the slippery slope do you go? After all, shouldn't we strive to have softball as ethical as, say, baseball.

I really don't think this is about toe dragging, rather, crow hopping 24-30 inches off the rubber and having a full plant and secondary push off the ground with the right leg (for a RH pitcher). It's common. It's done every day. So either call it or state that it is perfectly legal. Only recruit pitchers who have a 40" inseams and we can stretch that crow hop to 38 inches. Hire some weasel lawyers to sue ASA and blues because your doctored bats (to combat crow hopping) are... oh... a personal religious symbol of your gawd.

Oh, heck, we could always take the Tony Siragusa tact. He once said that a chop block in football, possibly ending a players career, is no big deal. It's a 15 yard penalty but if you take out a key player it's worth it in the end regardless of the potential of a long term injury. Hey, lets go in spikes high... take out players as needed... because, yah know... it's open to someones interpretation and only the wimps will complain.

As Leona Helmsley said, "rules are for little people". I think that was it... hummm.....

Sliding down the slope, fully greased... gaining speed... rationalizing alllll the way down.

[as the world turns]

Here is my observation:
Everything about the game has drastically improved over the last 10 -15 years and it is good for the sport. Players are faster, stronger, more athletic and more professional. Universities are building great stadiums and fields and TV coverage is increasing. It is all good.

Umpiring is the only aspect of the game that has not improved IMO. Look at all the embarrassing blown calls, inconsistent strike zones, illegal/no illegal pitch calls that we saw on National TV during the NCAA regionals and World Series this past season.

The inconsistency in the umpire world is glaring.